Re: Pattern matching details questions

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025, at 3:16 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > Patterns are deliberately designed as a superset of existing DNF types. > You can already have a type of Foo&Bar, so we want the pattern for > "instanceof Foo || instanceof Bar" to be the same. That means & and | > for conjunctions is necessary. Also supporting "and" and "or" would > technically be possible, but wouldn't resolve the issue (since & would > still be needed either way) and would just add more complication, > confusion, and inconsistency. I don't think that's viable. And that of course should be "$x instanceof Foo && $x instanceof Bar" in the equivalent example. My bad. (Though the point applies for |, ||, or, just the same.) --Larry Garfield